About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 40
LANGUAGE
English 40
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40
2000 specificly named by make and model firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes. second, the bill will not take away any weapons that are owned today. anyone who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you. finally, it would ban the future sale or transfer of these magazines, including the manufacturing, implementation, or possession. let me address for a moment the charge that the assault weapons ban such as this are unconstitutional. the original federal assault weapons ban and it was challenged repeatedly on every grounds the opponents to come up with, including the second amendment, the ninth amendment, the commerce clause, the due process clause, equal protection, and being a bill of the chamber. each and every time these challenges were rejected and the ban was upheld, including by the fourth, 6th, 9th, and d.c. circuit. the supreme court subsequently recognizes the individual rights to gun ownership in the district of columbia. however, that decision clearly stated, "the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited." justice scalia, the author of that
, a discussion about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in the hunt for osama bin laden, after that, the moderator for the 2012 presidential and vice president of the eight talk about their roles in the impact of twitter and other social media. now, a former cia officials for the george w. bush administration defend the use of enhanced interrogations' in the search for osama bin laden. michael hitt and joins former cia counsel who provides the bush administration on interrogations'. . and jose rodriguez. the american enterprise institute hosts this 90 minute of that. >> good morning. welcome to this morning's panel. separating fact from fiction. i am a member of a task force on detention and interrogation policy. captain bigelow's recent film sparked controversy. recentryn bigelow's film sparked controvery. its graphic depiction of eight torture. for the most part, the outrage has come from the left. you are a conservative like me, when you see the washington left with the hollywood left, your temptation is to sit back and destroyed a fight. -- and enoy the fight. that is why many o
house just fine drone strikes on u.s. citizens overseas. nbc news reported on the memo monday night and it has gotten lots of reaction in washington. what are your thoughts? call -- we want to get your thoughts on social media as well on twitter or facebook. or send us an e-mail. we will get your thoughts in a moment. first, josh gerstein is joining us on the phone. here's your headline -- what was this memo? guest: this is a white paper that looks like it was derived from some confidential legal opinions that the opinions -- opinions that the justice department wrote that authorized drones or some other counter-terrorism operations to basically killed u.s. citizens overseas. and it talks about one set of circumstances. it looks like it is talking specifically about a particular country or type of country or certain type of leaders or terrorist organizations and under what conditions it would be ok to use this type of lethal force. it does not talk about drones per say, but it appears that is what they are referring to. if it does not rule out using its under other circumstances. it
stimulus plan. we are asking for you to give us your view. welcome to this addition of the washington journal. we want to know from you what is your view of the economic recovery the president talked about four years ago. here are the numbers -- you can also reach out to us via social media. the address is on the screen. for twitter, the address is cspanwj. pan.book.com/c-spas or you can e-mail journal@c- span.org. we begin by talking about the speech that the president made four years ago in elkhart, indiana. it is part of the nbc news elkhart project. we will talk more about that. we want to talk to you about your view of the economic recovery. our first call comes from randy and new hampshire on our line for independence. caller: how are you guys this morning? things are going downhill fast. we are in this huge crisis. the recession is going on and on. we are lucky that we are not in worse shape in a severe depression. the banks keep doing business. things need to change fast. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i am a diesel mechanic by trade but i now go to school. i go to
and separate fact from fiction. today, we have a distinguished panel to help us do that. three veterans. there were directly involved in the cia integration and detention program. also the hunt for osama bin laden. mike is the former director of the national security agency and the director of the intelligence agency. i got to know him back in 2006, when i was asked to write the president's speech revealing the existence of the interrogation program. he was very kind to give me access to all the intelligence and introduced me to the men and women who conducted the interrogation. but he is not only one of the smartest people i know. he is one of the most compelling witnesses. when he came into the office, the program had been suspended. he was not involved in its initial creation. he conducted a partial assessment. he gathered all the information and had to advise the president whether or not to restart it. he concluded he could not advise the president not to have an interrogation program. we will ask him to explain why that is. jose rodriguez is the former director of the cia service.
are paying them. i can't believe we can't use the marines in these situations. someone has got to do a cost benefit analysis. can you imagine the amount of money we have spent fooling around with these contractors that weren't getting the job done? can you imagine the time we have spent on this and the money that has been spent? i would like for you, general, to talk about the cost benefit of putting marines in our embassies and why in the world this is hard for us to get our arms around and where is the analysis that shows us we are saving any money. >> just to react briefly to what would be necessarily a much longer conversation. the marines are not -- that's not their role or what they do for the nation. could it be at some point potentially? i would hate to think we would make that decision based on costs but it would require a longer conversation. >> i guess my point is god forbid we have something happen in kabul. this would look like child's play if you look at the history of what's gone on in terms of the guard force at kabul. and you know, i want to be to rt would be necessarily a
been an important opportunity for us to really put some considered thought into the proposal. what you have in front of you is better than airplane reading. there are some suggestions in this energy 2020 document that people will look at and they will argue and they will say -- that is one person's view. that is true, that is true. but while we are trying to do is not give you a legislative package starting with initiatives that we are going to kind of clicked off as we move forward. this is really designed to be a discussion blueprint. we want to try to change the conversation. one of the reasons we have to think about changing the conversation is because the energy paradigm has really shifted. think about where we were one decade ago. it was all about scarcity, shortages, and how much dependent we were on foreign sources for our oil. fast forward to where we are today. those once thought of import terminals are looking to the export terminals. we have made considerable gains in terms of our own energy independence, to the point where it is no longer just a slogan that we are talking
to hear what you think about president obama using executive orders to work around congress. here are the numbers to call. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for independents, 202-585-3882. you can also find us online. sadness a tweet at twitter.com/c-spanwj -- send us a tweet at twitter.com/c-spanwj. you can also e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. this story is from bloomberg news. host: looking at one of the executive orders that he assigned -- that he signed an tuesday, it relates to cyber security and cyber issues. the president issued an executive order designed to strengthen the cyber security of critical infrastructure last week, which some say could get the ball rolling for a renewed legislative push in congress. it contains some provisions of the bill in the sharing and protection act that failed past. the president is waging an endless campaign. president obama will never again be an election candidate, but for now he has "the look and sound of the man on the campaign trail." he met with a rally style event in decatur, ga.. it was preceded by a sim
that this is one of those cases. if you take a look that the authorization for use of military force, which all of us voted for the with as those of us who were here -- which all of us all take for, those of us who are here -- are we to believe that everybody on this list was responsible for the 9/11 attack? is that the rationale? >> all four of us agree with you. the 2001 aumf, which is only 60 words long about -- long, is now very long in the tooth. the extreme government solution would be for congress to work with the executive branch to revise that aumf. it is completely unclear about who it covers and where it covers it. >> it is as unclear as you suggest. this is a limitation. there were big arguments about it. there was a priory draft that was much more expensive and it was -- there was a prior draft which was much more expansive, and it was narrowed. the president has the right to keep his legal advice confidential. that is a longstanding principle. questions are raised as to whether the executive is complying with the law. if he feels he is, it was be -- would be a positive thing for t
. and that is why it is so important for us to do the report that we did. i will give you a perfect example. you have loan officers at banks being paid bonuses and pay based on how many loans they created. not whether those were good loans. not taking into account whether the loans would later default and caused sick of it and losses. there were a number of different causes of the financial crisis. we tried to bring a lot of transparency to it, to report on that. we are also doing a lot of work in this area to say what has not been dealt with. you are exactly right, fannie and freddie is not dealt with under dodd-frank. but let's talk about dodd-frank for a moment. there have been reforms to our financial system, but there needs to be significantly more. one thing about dodd-frank is it sets up a framework. but ultimately not all of the rules are implemented. there are very important standards that need to be set by the regulators and treasury. because what we are worried about is trying to protect americans in the event of another financial crisis. we do not want to be in a situation where one
like? >> we learned a lot of useful information. for us, it is going beyond just focusing on people with disabilities to try to get into what all of us are focused on, workforce development. we are over and over again from employers that there are jobs available, but there are skills gaps, and to the extent that we can plug in people with disabilities who may have expertise, either full-time or part-time, it is a benefit not just helping people with disabilities. it would be a benefit to our employers. >> you have your head up -- hand up? >> i would like to say that all of you are employers, and some of the biggest employers in your states. it is really important to have a team of your senior people that are being held accountable. the rest and work going on for many years -- the rest and work going on for many years -- there has been work going on for many years, getting information on what they are actually doing and whether the numbers are moving up or not. looking at what you are doing with the department of rehabilitation, it is like 80% federal, 20% state. some states are not
to say a word about the councils africa center for the benefit of the audience, those who are new to us were joining us for the first time via television or the internet. the africa center was established in september, 2009, with a mission to help transform u.s. and other healthy approaches to africa by emphasizing the building of strong geopolitical partnerships with african states and strengthening economic growth and prosperity on the continent. the center seeks to engage and inform with policymakers in the general public of the strategic importance of effort that. both globally and for american and european interest in particular. a subject which obviously -- a commitment you share by joining us today. of strategic importance. we do this for -- a robust media presence. we worked promote constructive us leadership and engagement in international affairs is done the central role of the atlantic community in meeting international challenges. the africa center supports and collaborates with product -- public and private sectors, giving practical solutions to the challenges in africa. on
bring your budget to the congress, mr. president, let us know when it balances and hopefully it's not never, as he's had the last four years. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered as read for amendment under the five-minute rule and the bill shall be considered read. no amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in house report 112- -- 113-8. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the bill, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be debatable equally divided by a proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in how report 113-8. -- in house report 113-8. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in how report 113-8 offered by mr. takano of california. the
to fix immigration, which would be huge, but an opportunity for us to demonstrate to the country that finally we can do something that is hard, and we can do it in a bipartisan way. >> when you think about it and you stepped out these principles, including finding a track for citizens to get legal -- but you bump them back behind those that are there. i have read through them. but what point, when you get into deeper specifics -- i have read through the colorado compact and what the group of eight have put on the table. it reads as principals. it does not read specifically. when do you begin losing the bipartisan flamboyance? >> there will be bumps in the road. it will not be an easy thing to do. if it worries you -- were easy to do, it would have been done a long time ago. there are parties ready to get this done, who have heard from home the same things i am hearing. i think we have momentum and need to keep pushing. the principles we enunciated are much more specific. the notion with the colorado complex is similar to what we did when i went in a superintendent, which was to g
. in nominating john brennan, president obama spoke of his " commitment to the values that define us as americans." others noted his impeccable integrity and his dedication to the country is second to none. without the unanimous consent, i would like to insert into the record matters the committee has received in regard to mr. brennan's nomination. john brennan by all accounts will be a strong leader, guided firmly by the law and his strong ethical code. he has assured the committee in his response to pre-hearing questions that he will be independent from political influence. he will seek only to provide the president, the congress, and other leaders, with his best analysis and advice. his responses to the committee's questions are available on the committee's website. of course the committee must conduct its due diligence on such an important nominee, some members are going to have questions in a range of topics, including his plans for directing the agency, a major national security challenges we face, positions and actions he has taken in his current and past jobs. also of interest will be mr.
their for twitter @cspanwj, then facebook.com/span, or email us a c-span.org. more off the lead in washington post -- on the line to tell us more about the story is sarah cliff. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. host: why this opt-out? guest: the opt-out has been an area that has challenged the ministration for all but a week -- for over a year, trying to find a balance between reproductive health and also guaranteeing religious liberty. as to the wine now part -- they have promised since about a year ago, last february, they promised religious organizations and would come up with regulations that would find a middle ground. reason we're seeing it now is because i wanted to give companies a heads up about what the compromise would look like. host: what has been the response from supporters of the president? guest: supporters of the president are happy with it. it seems to guarantee widespread access to birth control, regardless of who your employer is. host: opponents of the president's plan and say what? guest: say it does not answer their problems, for two reasons. first, t
"commitment to the values that define us as americans." others note his impeccable integrity and his dedication to the country is second to none. without unanimous consent, i would like to insert into the record matters the committee has received in regard to brennan's nomination. john brennan by all accounts will be a strong leader, guided firmly by the law and his strong ethical code. he has assured the committee in his response to pre-hearing questions that he will be independent from political influence. he will seek only to provide the president, the congress, and other leaders with his best analysis and advice. his responses to the committee's questions are available on the committee's website. intelligence.senate.gov. of course the committee must conduct its due diligence on such an important nominee, some members are going to have questions in a range of topics, including his plans for directing the agency, major national security challenges we face, positions and actions he has taken in his current and past jobs. also of interest will be mr. brennan's the view on the use of
the legal justification for the treatment of terrorist detainees in u.s. custody. within months of taking office released several olc memos describing the legal justification for the treatment of terrorist detainees in u.s. custody. do you think it was appropriate that a different standard was applied to the release of the memos from the bush administration than those produced by the obama administration? >> i do not think there was a different standard. >> one was released within four months of the obama administration taking office. the other had been requested for a much longer time. >> i am not a lawyer. i have come to learn of the term sui generis. the olc memos released after the president came into office were released because the program was terminated. olc will counsel opinions, and those opinions were looked at in a different way because of the sui generis circumstances. >> both are essential for the ability of congress to carry its oversight responsibilities. finally, the intelligence reform act and terrorist prevention act of 2004, with which you are very familiar and which i
will be talking about it on tuesday. the numbers -- you can also send us an e-mail, join us at corridor.com -- twitter.com/cspanwj. great expectations, immigration is one of the issues on the president's agenda. he may get much of what he wants in part because a bipartisan support on the issue of immigration. he will look for ways to declare victory on guns and climate change. the focus on the economy, that is one headline we are getting. the front page of the washington post -- the reporting of scott wilson, the chief white house reporter for the washington post. chris van hollen is our guest on c-span's newsmakers program. he is a leading democrat in the house of representatives. >> the president will be delivering his state of the union address this week. i think he will address those questions. we are so caught up in dealing with these short-term, self- imposed crises that is undermining our ability to come up with a long-term comprehensive planned. there are philosophical differences. our republican colleagues do not believe that there is any role for the government beyond providin
guidance. it doesn't surprise us in the two years later when they would draft the first charter of the first constitution of virginia that they would have, as one of its primary purposes and its dedication, for the advancement and service of god and the enlargement of his kingdom. those years turned into decades and they moved that capitol from jamestown to williamsburg and it was a tough couple of years and they had great men of faith. some of them would spend 13 hours a day studying the bible, praying, and one of those individuals was a guy named samuel davies and he would get up often times at his church and preach and this lady liked him so much she would bring her sons and daughters to hear him on a weekly basis and her young teenage son would learn principles that he would talk about, about god and rights that came from god and not from men. that lady was sara henry and her son was patry heck -- patrick henry. when patrick was 29 years old, on his birthday, first day he was in the virginia general assembly, they were debating the stamp act and he was supposed to be there a
of this committee is one that is very proud to work together. i'm happy that you are here with us to help move that tradition forward at a greater and deeper rate. we deeply appreciate it. less than two miles from where we sit today at the entrance of u.s. treasury building that is a large, bronze statue. one would assume that the figure is alexander hamilton. america's first treasury secretary. look again. this 12 foot tall statue is of albert gallatin. the longest serving u.s. treasury. in a to one, thomas jefferson asked gallatin to serve. --in 1801, thomas jefferson asked gallatin to serve here in the place of treasury secretary is more than avarice and response will -- laborous and responsible than any other. what did he do? he established fiscal discipline that was necessary a country into a great world power. gallatin also help orchestrate the louisiana purchase, doubling the size of the united states. his work is commemorated in gallatin county, montana and a beautiful gallatin national forest in the rockies as well as the gallatin river in missouri. when gallatin accepted the decision
their creator had given all of us. to make decisions for good or bad and normally to have to live with the consequences -- consequences of those decisions. the global jihadist threat that secretary clinton pointed out does not have the belief that a democracy is a good idea. that a people electing representatives in a republican form of government is a good idea. they believed that we need some religious leader like the ayatollah khomeini or now in iran. they need a religious leader like that that tells us what we can do, that makes all his decisions under shari'a law. . all of those who met during the revolution, they believed in the power of prayer to god, and that's why they prayed during that time, but they wanted much to have the chance to worship as they chose. be they muslim, hindu. but especially judeo-christian beliefs where jews and christians had traditionally suffered so much persecution. they wanted the chance for people to worship as they please or not worship, but they knew to make that possible had he had to -- they had to pray to god. that's why we are observing o
expressed concerns that now that the strikes are being used at lower levels, arguably, that they are creating a backlash that is undermining the credibility of government and creating new terrorists when a neighbor or family member is killed in the course of the operations. do you agree with general mcchrystal and director hayden about the backlash of strikes from the targeted killings at this point? i am not talking about the initial strikes. >> that is something that we need to be mindful of in terms of reaction, any type of u.s. counter-terrorism activities that involve the dropping of ordnance. whether it is a remotely piloted aircraft or man, we need to take that into account, but i would not agree with those statements because what we have found in many areas is that the people are being held hostage to outcry that in these areas and have welcomed the work that the government has done to rid them of the al qaeda cancer that exists. >> finally today, this committee received the olc memos justification, labo that, many of us who have been on the committee longer th
and innovation, the highest honors bestowed by the u.s. government upon scientists, engineers, and inventors. you will have it for you later in our program schedule. at the white house, jay carney held his daily briefing, addressing a number of issues including a bombing at the u.s. embassy in turkey today. >> does the president considered the attack on our embassy in turkey to be a terrorist attack? >> that is an excellent question a suicide bombing on the perimeter of an embassy is by definition an act of terror, a terrorist attack. i think this is an incident that has just occurred and i don't want to get ahead of it, is being investigated. we strongly condemn what was a suicide attack against our embassy in ankara, which took place at the embassy's our security perimeter. details are still emerging about what exactly happened, who was responsible. it is clearly an act of terror. it caused -- cost hte life about least one individual, a turkish security guard. we are working with the turkish authorities to investigate the incident and bring the perpetrators to justice. our thoughts and prayers
on sequester. also send us a tweet, twitter.com @cspanwj. this morning, here is the "new york post with the breakdown of what this administration is warning on sequester and the impact on federal employees. scare tactics, being $85 billion in sequester cuts would be bought by consumers, home buyers, and even some taxpayers filing paper returns. -- there is a breakdown of the federal employees that are impacted inside of washington and outside across the country. we want to hear from them only this morning to get their take on sequestration. let's go to sandra in georgia, what do you do? caller: good morning. i work for the department of defense. this is huge for me. specifically i work in the office of soldiers council. we represent soldiers that the army is looking to put out of the military. this is a monumental for me. i am proud of federal worker. we worked extremely hard. my dismay is that you have some folks in washington that are putting out these on for statements that federal workers are lazy, overpaid. we have not had a raise in two years. we all sacrificed tremendously.
. thank you for being with us on the "washington journal." the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 14, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable chris collins to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullen, for five minutes. -- mr. mullin, for five minutes. mr. mullin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro te
to use that as a bargaining chip again. we saw how damaging bringing into question the credit worthyness of the government. the fight should not be should we pay the bill? >> there is an interesting question about in retrospect if republicans leveraging the debt limit to get a bill that cut spending by $1 to $2 trillion going forward whether that was worth it? they introduced liquidity risk. if you don't cut spending we're not going to vote for a debt limit increase. it worked. the president agreed to cut the spending by a significant amount. now, would you like that negotiation had resulted from not having made that threat? absolutely. but do you think it would have occurred? there's the difference. i would never be one to advocate that congress should not increase the debt limit. they should. when this came up in the summer of 2011 i wrote that and they put that in the pages of "the initial review." i was arguing against those who say let's look and creating a cash crunch. that is the wrong thing to do. congress has the ability to decide what they want to attach to the legislation. tha
. they are used to charge into some division. everything goes somewhere. i would love to know what they do with their time. they took how many minutes to vote on being adjourned so they had to stay there. this is like kindergarten. it is embarrassing. we need infrastructure and people that could make things happen. i watched a bunch of guys and they made up information. we need to get more women in there. we could be doing five things at the time. host: here to tell us more is ginger gibson, a congressional reporter with "politico." what happened on capitol hill yesterday and in the white house? guest: there has been no actual progress. we did not get closer to a solution yesterday. there was a lot of talking yesterday. mitch mcconnell and john boehner will bring forward alternative bills. each side is willing to put forth a proposal. they might bring forward more than one. there are some disagreements about giving the president more flexibility. john boehner said the senate needed to move and used colorful language. we did not see bills or talks. there was no changes as of yesterday. host
, to enjoy life is heartbreaking. fortunately tucker's mother rescued herself and her son by using the resources that the violence against women act makes available. tucker is now living away from his father in counseling and on his way to a happy and healthy future. time and time again we hear that programs like this break the cycle of domestic violence. we must view this legislation not just as a woman's issue but as a family issue, as a community issue that touches all our lives. it is essential for all past and future victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, that we strengthen and re-authorize the violence against women act. i urge my colleagues to re-authorize an all-inclusive version of the violence against women act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i am pleased, mr. speaker, to yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman f
common use. of course, all guns are dangerous or they would be useless. but a gun that can spray bullets without being reloaded is more dangerous. and the third criterion was how vital it is to self-defense. now, none of those things can be answered in a kind of easy, black and white way, because in a sense the more dangerous a gun is the more useful it also is for self-defense. >> that's a good point. i guess that's what i'm trying to tell the public. could you put up our chart up -- about different guns? i think we all agree that any weapon, one bullet in the hands of a mentally unstable person is one too many, do you agree with that concept? any gun should be denied someone who's mentally unstable? >> yeah. >> i do. >> i think everybody would. and we don't want felons because that's already the existing law. now, a circumstance you've described, the circumstance you found yourself in. there is a case in atlanta recently, dr. tribe are of a lady -- of a lady who was defending her home against a home invader. she was home with twin daughters. she ran up to the closet. she was on the pho
. over time the tactic used to stop people from voting have become more sophisticated. unfair voter i.d. laws. barriers to voter registration. and narrowed early voting opportunities were all used in an attempt to suppress the vote in 2012. overall 2,400 changes in voting laws were stopped because of section 5 of the voting rights act, as my colleague, mr. jefferies, just outlined. in january the naacp president said, the nation has been facing some of the, quote, greatest attacks on voting rights since segregation. and that the potential to repeal section 5 is the biggest threat yet. whether it's attempts to restrict early voting in ohio or florida, or throwing up billboards in minority communities that read, voter fraud is a felony, we know that our work is not done. intimidation is still a tactic employed by some seeking to scare voters from the polls. and until that threat is extinged -- extinct, section 5 of the voting rights act still has a very important role to play in making full democratic enfranchisement a reality in our society. but we secured the integrity of electorate i
solutions that will allow us to use power in a smarter manner, produce clean and abundant renewable energy and reduce emissions through energy efficiency. these are things we should be able to agree on and work together on in a bipartisan manner. it is critical that we move forward with a sense of urgency and take meaningful action that addresses the very real threats of climate change that are already impacting our country. sequestration is devastating america today. madam speaker, we just heard from one of my colleagues. this week we're scheduled to go on recess on friday. i hope that my colleague that spoke today, mr. speaker, reaches out to speaker boehner and eric cantor to say, let's stop the sequestration from happening. it's quite simple. the fix to this legislation could be put together in one sentence. stop it. i guess even better in two words. madam speaker, we have a sense of urgency across the country when it comes to working on climate change legislation, but as we talk about the impact to each and every one of our districts with what sequestration will bring with job losses,
is 35 minutes. >> good morning everybody. thank you for joining us. today, we're going to be making an announcement about an important change to our national delivery schedule. i think anyone who has followed the postal service over the past couple of years know that we have been consistently making changes to our delivery schedule. it is an important part of our strategy returning back to financial stability and it is absolutely necessary to make that move. before i get into the details of the announcement, i would like to spend a couple of minutes discussing the financial reasons for this scheduled delivery change. since 2008, we have seen a steady decline in the use of first class mail. it is our most profitable product and generates the most revenue. people pay their bills online, simple, easy and free. on the other hand, people do -- still like to receive hard copy statements and bills and the fact that businesses continue to send mail to the homes and that's been pretty stable over the past few years, show people do value the mail that they receive. however, they do like to ma
these politicians are basing their assumptions on as far as hagel is concerned. he used to be a parity decent sounding person -- decent sounding person. he is not making sense anymore. thank you. host: isaac from new york, democrat line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on hagel and the perspective of young democrats. to hear this man talk was really astounding. i am quite critical of the obama administration in terms of things i have done. in terms of hagel's nomination, i am very impressed. his views on foreign-policy almost seemed to dip -- too far beyond this era. my only feel is that the political parties will bring this ideology down simply because a lot of people are not prepared for it. thank you and have a good day. guest: i think -- i would beg to differ about the too far beyond this era. i had the privilege of working for former secretary of state george schultz. in my estimation, senator hagel's views are consistent with secretary schultz, whom i think is one of the giants of our time. i think they have the same sort of outlook of trying to be pragmatic and take a lo
aware of its widespread use. as a freshman legislator in oregon 40 years ago, my opinion was set by a hog farmer from eastern oregon who was a state representative named stafford. stafford held the oregon house and the people crowded in the galleries spellbound with his tutorial on marijuana and its comparison to other addictive substances, both legal and illegal. this older gentlemen who didn't smoke, didn't drink alcohol, let alone use marijuana, made his case. he pointed out how tobacco was highly addictive and killed hundreds of thousands of americans per year. he discussed alcohol whose damaging properties had once led the country into a foolish, costly and ultimately self-defeated experiment with prohibition. alcohol use was damaging for some, led to dependency for many while contributing to tens of thousands of highway deaths every year. by the time the representative got to marijuana, he convinced the bill he was advocating to have legalization, something i should advocate, something oregonians should be allowed this choice, less addicting than tobacco. we didn't legalize
, for every 12, 2013. president obama traveled -- will travel down pennsylvania avenue tonight to the u.s. capitol building to deliver the first state of the union address of his second term at 9:00 eastern. c-span coverage begins at 8:00 tonight. we would like to hear from you this morning. how much reducing state of the union addresses matter? here are the numbers to call -- be it can also find us online. john the conversation -- -- join the conversation. the front page of "politico's website -- we will talk about lobbying later on this morning. first, let's look at the five stings it says to watch the president obama address tonight. , do you think state of the union addresses matter? that's our question for you. on facebook we have a poll where you can weigh in. the washington post says the impact of annual addresses does not intend to be long-lasting. what do you stinkpot? jim in therapy -- what do you think? jim in fairfax station. caller: no, they don't matter. it's an opportunity to look at what is said in a state of the union and move forward a year after it and assess what was p
, the afghan president karzai on sunday ordered all u.s. special forces to leave within two weeks and requested their operations are ceased immediately which neighbors in kabul is viewed as a gateway to the capital, is used as counterinsurgency efforts in recent years. why do we fund a man that doesn't like us? i don't understand that at all. how in the world account congress in its wisdom not speak out and say, listen, you're talking about a 10-year agreement after 2014? how can a country that's financially broke commit to 10 more years after 2014? i do not understand that. in fact, i have introduced with rosa delauro h.r. 125, the congressional oversight of afghanistan agreement act of 2013, which is a bipartisan bill introduced by us and we are reaching out to our other colleagues to say, congress, let's get on the floor, let's debate whether we should stay there 10 years after 2014 or not. mr. speaker, i sincerely believe that the american people would back this legislation because the american people have seen the total chaos right here this week, last week and the next couple weeks to com
by the constitution but not granted to us by the constitution. people get that wrong sometimes, i think. they say constitution grants me my right to free speech. no, constitution protects your right of free speech. second idea is spontaneous order. if you have taken a political theory class, you might say that individual rights is the normative theory. they say what things ought to be. there is no need to believe in individual rights or anything to recognize the fact in the world of spontaneous order. to most of us, most of the order in the world seems planned. it took a lot of planning to organize this event today. took a lot of planning to organize the c-span network. it takes a lot of planning to build automobiles, create airlines. all of the things we see in the world takes planning. why is there food in the groceries every day? you think that must be planned but, in fact, the most important order in society are not planned. they are way beyond the ability of any person or group of people to plan. that's not just a point about the economy. think about language. nobody planned the english lang
well outlined, mr. chairman. jack is no stranger to us. i met him there decades ago when i was a wide eyed congressman and he was a top aide for house speaker, tip o'neill. we became friends. he taught us a whole lot. i know that tip a tremendous influence on jack. it is clear that he shares the same work ethic and sense of duty. he shares another thing -- bipartisanship. speaker o'neill was renown for sitting down with president reagan and trying to work problems out. jack was heavily involved in that and continues to be. he is a bipartisan person who wants to be successful at working with both parties. you mentioned the issue with trust. there is no straighter shooter than jack lew. he is one of the most honorable, honest, and decent men in washington. when he gives you facts, they are backed up with research. from the time i knew jack when he started in tip o'neill's office, he would always outline both sides of the argument and give each without bias. he would tell you where he came down, but he always let you make your own judgment. that has propelled him to an extremely successf
? republicans this is your number -- democrats -- and dependents -- educators -- send us a tweet @cspanwj. or send us an e-mail. we will begin this e-mail with the hill newspaper and the house and house republicans proposing $30 million a year to fund cops in schools' programs. mark meadows and six other house republicans have proposed legislation that it spent $30 million a year on federal grants to help put police officers in schools across the country. according to a recent poll, 53% of americans believe increasing police presence at schools would be very effective in preventing future tragedies. -- we are getting your take on this this morning. armed guards in the schools as part of an overall effort to tighten gun laws. a democratic caller in florida, curtis, go ahead. caller: i'm a die-hard democrat, and i wish you would give democrats -- do not feel like it is fair. the issue of the armed guards, you're asking for cheaper -- i am active duty. i was in vietnam. you're asking for trouble. the media does it too much coverage -- what i mean, these guys in a fantasy world, i'm concerned
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40